Sony A6000

[tommui987]

I'll get a travel zoom (either the Zeiss 16-70 or the Sony 18-105) before my March cruise.

 

If it is a matter of the 28=70, I would opt for the Sony 28-70. DxO

thinks it is a tad better than the Zeiss and a lot cheaper though admittedly the Zeiss has a constant f4.0,

 

The Sony 18-105 gives you a better range from about 28-150as opposed to the 44mm-105mm (35mm equivalent) tough again, thr 28-70 is sharper.

 

I don't nelievr Zeiss has a 16-70 for the A6000 - at least I have found no reference for it.

 

Dave might suggest - get both!

[wmjivey]

I went with the following kit for my cruises, the two lense kit and the Sony 50/1.8 plus the Rokinon 12/2 manual lens. Dave talked about these lens on his trips and I am loving these four lens for carrying around.

 

John

[pierces]

Dave: How do you do the "manual focusing with the A6000 is very easy with the focus magnifier and focus peaking?"

 

Still trying to figure out the menu on the A6000!

 

And to all: Best wishes for the Holidays!

Tom

 

Ok Tom, per my previous estimate, make that a week or so... :o

 

 

Here's a link to the new article on the A6000 manual focusing tips.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/manualfocus.html

 

Let me know if it helps and if I made any really egregious errors.

 

 

Happy New Year to all!

 

Dave

[tommui987]

Ok Tom, per my previous estimate, make that a week or so... :o

 

/QUOTE]

 

Actually when you wrote the above - a day or so - I was hoping that you would take it easy with the Holidays and all - instead of heading for your desk and composing the article!

 

But thank you for your efforts and it is much appreciated.

 

Jsppu Mew Year to you and yours and to all you A6000 fanatics out there!.

 

Aloha and best wishes!,

Tom

[wmjivey]

Dave again thank you for your time to help those of us who are still learning the joy of photographing, you give an honest review on what works and what doesn't. You are patient and don't have a knee-jerk reaction on stupid worded posts.

 

John

[robjan245]

Yes, Dave thanks for your tips and help. I decided to go the prime lens route instead of overpriced zooms. My Sigma 30 gets delivered on Monday and I'm picking up a Sony 50mm at Best Buy later today.

Edited January 1, 2016 by robjan245

[pierces]

Thanks for the kind words, all!

 

robjan245, you will love the 50mm. When I went looking for a portrait lens, the test results on the SAL5018 caught my attention and after about a year of first-hand experience with it, I'd have to say the stellar published results were honest and accurate. For the money, it is nearly impossible to beat the quality and you get image stabilization to boot!

 

Happy New Year to all!

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Thanks for the kind words, all!

 

robjan245, you will love the 50mm. When I went looking for a portrait lens, the test results on the SAL5018 caught my attention and after about a year of first-hand experience with it, I'd have to say the stellar published results were honest and accurate. For the money, it is nearly impossible to beat the quality and you get image stabilization to boot!

 

Happy New Year to all!

 

Dave

 

Honestly... it won't become my pro workhorse. But with the stabilization, combined with the great face detection, great AF coverage, and eye-AF, it really can change the way one shoots portraits.

[c230k]

Looking for a long zoom lens for the A6000. The Sony 70-200mm out on cost. Was thinking on getting the Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS. A full frame lens on the A6000.

Thanks

Tom :cool:

[havoc315]

Looking for a long zoom lens for the A6000. The Sony 70-200mm out on cost. Was thinking on getting the Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS. A full frame lens on the A6000.

Thanks

Tom :cool:

 

The issue with the 24-240 is weight. It is 780 grams. The 70-200/4 is 840 grams. The 55-210 is a mere 345 grams.

 

So being full frame and a super zoom, the 24-240 is simply a beast in size, for the A6000.

 

It's also about the same aperture as the 55-210. Much more expensive than the 55-210.

 

So is the extra size, weight and price worth it? How much IQ difference is there, or are you just paying for full frame and super zoom?

It's hard to say, there are few professional reviews of either lens, but from the reviews I've seen, both lenses deliver a pretty similar mediocre performance.

So you'd be paying much more money, and carrying much greater weight, just to get the same IQ, same aperture, but about 10% more reach, than the 55-210. In other words, I'd either spring for the 70-200, which does have much better image quality, or I'd save my money and go with the 55-210.

 

According to DXO testing, it's about a tie in IQ between the 55-210 and the 24-240:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E-55-210mm-F45-63-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A6000__942

 

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-24-240mm-F35-63-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A5000__929

Edited January 5, 2016 by havoc315

[nmeola]

I am learning my new A6000. Taking many photos at all different settings. As a total beginner, I am amazed at the photos I have taken. My primary goal is to get ready for my two weeks in Alaska this June. I have a question about the next lens I buy. I am thinking of either a 50 mm prime or the 18 - 105 . I do not have the 55 - 210 but have the use of one for my trip. Suggestion for the right lens for the trip. I will be taking a total of three float plane and helicopter trips so also thinking I need a polarizing filter.

[pierces]

I am learning my new A6000. Taking many photos at all different settings. As a total beginner, I am amazed at the photos I have taken. My primary goal is to get ready for my two weeks in Alaska this June. I have a question about the next lens I buy. I am thinking of either a 50 mm prime or the 18 - 105 . I do not have the 55 - 210 but have the use of one for my trip. Suggestion for the right lens for the trip. I will be taking a total of three float plane and helicopter trips so also thinking I need a polarizing filter.

 

The 50mm will be of less use than the 18-105 since most of the time spent on an Alaska cruise is outside during the day where the flexibility of a zoom trumps the wider aperture of the 50mm prime. My opinion but based on five Alaska cruises and a bunch of photos! :)

 

A polarizer can be valuable if you have a lot of sunny days and a warming polarizer like the Moose Peterson Polarizer from Hoya can add pop to rainy, wet foliage and earth tones. Be cautious with the polarizer on flightseeing unless you are shooting into bare air. Plane and helicopter windows are usually made of polycarbonate plastic and though usually quite clear, are themselves polarizing and the combination of the two can give you weird dark areas and colored banding. A flexible rubber hood, dark clothing and black gloves are your best friends when minimizing interior reflections when shooting through an aircraft window.

 

 

Dave

Edited January 5, 2016 by pierces

[havoc315]

I am learning my new A6000. Taking many photos at all different settings. As a total beginner, I am amazed at the photos I have taken. My primary goal is to get ready for my two weeks in Alaska this June. I have a question about the next lens I buy. I am thinking of either a 50 mm prime or the 18 - 105 . I do not have the 55 - 210 but have the use of one for my trip. Suggestion for the right lens for the trip. I will be taking a total of three float plane and helicopter trips so also thinking I need a polarizing filter.

 

No right or wrong, different lenses with different purposes.

 

The 50mm prime is great as a very short telephoto, low light, and portraits. It is sharper than your other lenses, so good from an image quality snob perspective. If you want to shoot portraits IN THE SHIP, it's a good choice.

 

The 18-105 will give you much greater range, on the wide end and the telephoto end.

If you are taking landscapes, it is a much better choice. If you want portraits with a blurred background, which is nice for many classic portraits, the 50 is much nicer. But for Alaska, you may want portraits where the background is sharp (family with the scenery behind). In which case, you don't really need the 50. The 18-105 can give you similar results, and wider.

 

In other words, the 18-105 can give you much much more versatility than the 50/1.8. But the 50/1.8 can shoot some nicer portraits, and can be more useful indoors.

 

So what's important to you?

Portraits like this:

alaska-470.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Or portraits like this:

alaska-924.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Or landscapes like this:

Disney Wonder at Tracy Arm Alaska by Adam Brown, on Flickr

[nmeola]

Thanks. I sure hope I can get some photos of that quality. I think I have made a decision of the 18 - 105.

[nmeola]

Thanks Dave. Your atricles nd advice are great. May I ask for any more advice you have on photos taken from the float planes and helicopters. I am doing three ans sure want some good pics with all the money I am spending. I have ordered to Sony 18 - 105.

[wmjivey]

You could rent a big lens and adapter pretty cheap, did it when I went to Alaska, didn't want to spend $2,500 on a lens when I can rent to for just over $100

[havoc315]

Thanks Dave. Your atricles nd advice are great. May I ask for any more advice you have on photos taken from the float planes and helicopters. I am doing three ans sure want some good pics with all the money I am spending. I have ordered to Sony 18 - 105.

 

Ultrawide is good on float planes, like the Sony 10-18, but sticking with your new 18-105, you'll likely mostly want to use it on the long end. Use a fast shutter speed (1/500 minimum) and stop down your aperture (at least 6.3, prefer F8). This will maximize your sharpness for landscapes, and account for the movement of the plane, plus your own movement as it's not the most comfortable way to shoot.

 

This would be 12mm on the A6000:

Alaska-76.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Alaska-26.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

16mm on the A6000:

Alaska-170.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

This would be 15mm on the A6000:

Alaska-96.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Edited January 9, 2016 by havoc315

[havoc315]

You could rent a big lens and adapter pretty cheap, did it when I went to Alaska, didn't want to spend $2,500 on a lens when I can rent to for just over $100

 

Any "big" non-native lens and adapter combo will be pretty slow on the A6000, defeating the usefulness for wildlife, which is where you would use a long lens.

The native 70-200/4 would be top quality and give an equivalent focal length of 300mm, which is good enough for some wildlife shots. Likely enough on a whale watch, for example, but not really enough for eagles.

[shootr]

Ultrawide is good on float planes, like the Sony 10-18, but sticking with your new 18-105, you'll likely mostly want to use it on the long end. Use a fast shutter speed (1/500 minimum) and stop down your aperture (at least 6.3, prefer F8). This will maximize your sharpness for landscapes, and account for the movement of the plane, plus your own movement as it's not the most comfortable way to shoot.

 

This would be 12mm on the A6000:

Alaska-76.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Alaska-26.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

16mm on the A6000:

Alaska-170.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

This would be 15mm on the A6000:

Alaska-96.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

These are great! Having the wingtip in the shot really puts me in the moment - I love that kind of stuff.

[c230k]

NEED ADVICE

 

Was thinking on buying the Sony 35mm 1.8 oss for my A6000. I do have the RX100 that shoots 35mm at 1.8. Is it worth the buy?

 

Thanks

Tom :cool:

Edited January 11, 2016 by c230k

[pierces]

NEED ADVICE

 

Was thinking on buying the Sony 35mm 1.8 oss for my A6000. I do have the RX100 that shoots 35mm at 1.8. Is it worth the buy?

 

Thanks

Tom :cool:

 

In addition to the higher resolution and better noise control, you'll get a shallower depth of field at any given f-stop with the APS-C 35mm on your A6000. If those differences are important to you, the 35mm is reportedly a very good lens. An alternative if you are looking for a sharp prime in that range would be the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 for the e-mount. It's a bit slower and doesn't have stabilization but is just as sharp at half the price.

 

You have to be amazed that for once, I'm suggesting something that would save you money! ;)

 

Dave

Edited January 11, 2016 by pierces

[zackiedawg]

The SEL35mm F1.8 OSS is quite a nice lens - I love it on the A6000 for low light handheld work, which is what I use it for 99% of the time. 50mm on APS-C is a little too long for my needs, whereas 30-35mm is a sweet spot. Mine spends almost its entire life at F1.8 to F2, and almost exclusively in low light, night, dark ride, and interior situations...and therefore almost all of my examples from the lens are at very high ISO levels - up to 12,800. It's still quite sharp even with the aperture wide open.

 

One of my few ISO100 shots with it:

 

ISO6400 wide open:

 

ISO3200:

 

ISO12,800:

 

One of the very very few daytime, normal aperture (F8) shots I have with this lens:

 

The 'is it worth it' part I can't really say - that's up to you. If you just need that focal length, but not necessarily the fast aperture, then as Dave said there are other options to consider that can be cheaper. If you want native autofocus, stabilization, and need the F1.8 aperture either for shallow depth of field or extreme low light conditions, then it is an excellent buy.

Edited January 11, 2016 by zackiedawg

[c230k]

Dave

Thanks for the quick reply, after further review going with Justin's info and get the Sony 35mm 1.8 oss, is just seems worth the price difference. Thank you Justin.

I dd take up your info and bought the Rokinon 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye II, great fun lens. Also appreciate your write up on manual focus. By the way what did you replace your Nex-7 with?

 

Justin

Thanks so much for your input and the GREAT PICTURES, which said a lot Now looking for the best deal. Really enjoy your photos from the Sony 70-200mm lens, now that would one worth saving for lol.

 

You both make this web site a joy to read and learn from. :D

 

Tom :cool:

[pierces]

...By the way what did you replace your Nex-7 with?

 

 

My little NEX3c (original second body before the A6000) does a good job as a second body but it is pretty old and gives the occasional startup error. Despite that, I've been holding out for the A6100 (or whatever). I have a trip coming up this spring and if the rumored March release doesn't happen, I'll scan the sales to get a second A6000 body.

 

Still can't justify the leap to full-frame. The A7RII has been singing me a Siren song but the overall performance of the A6000, lack of FE lenses, the rumored specs of the next generation APS-C body and an unwillingness to undermine four decades of marriage has kept me strong.

 

Should probably buy a Powerball ticket....

 

 

Dave

[tommui987]

I'm suggesting something that would save you money! ;)

 

Dave

 

Will wonders never cease! :-)

 

Tom gets all enthusiastic about the 18mm-105mm And of course being old and needing a verstile zoom, I get it and got rid of my Sigma 19mm and 30mm, it being duplication of effort.

 

Then of course seller's remorse - no prime lens between the 12mm Rokinon and the 50mm Sony.

 

Now Justin comes up touting with the 35mm Sony with Dave's concurrence.

 

And DW wants a zoom instead of the prime Sigma, fine decades plus of marriage, I get her a 28-70mm Sony.-she who must be obeyed.

 

Two toughts - aruggh! and it's only money.

 

Anyone know a good Chapter-7 attorney?